In 2005, the United States Air Force Air Combat Command and Air Force Research Laboratory released a Battle Management and Command & Control system human-machine interface Design Guide. A study was conducted at a North American Aerospace Defense Command air defense sector to assess a new command and control system for level of compliance with this new guide. Sixty-seven qualified command and control personnel participated in the pilot study, consisting of 15 qualitative survey items. Results indicate that the use of such a qualitative measurement instrument may prove effective in determining relative levels of compliance with usability guidelines.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BevanN.CursonI. (2001). Methods for measuring usability. Middlesex, UK: National Physical Laboratory, Usability Services.
CrispH. E.McKneelyJ. A.WallaceD. F.PerryA. A. (2001). The solution for future command and control: Human-centered design. Dahlgren, VA: Naval Surface Warfare Center.
4.
EvansM. W.AbelaA. M.BeltzT. (2002, April). Seven characteristics of dysfunctional software projects. Crosstalk; The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. Retrieved January 17, 2006, from http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2002/04/evans.htm.
5.
GayL. R.AirasianP. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
6.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9241-11 (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs); Guidance on usability. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
7.
NelsonW. T.BoliaR. S. (2005a). Battle management / command and control human machine interface style guide (Version 1.0). Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Air Force Research Laboratory.
8.
NelsonW. T.BoliaR. S. (2005b). Interface heuristics and style guide design: An air battle management case study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 113–117). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
9.
NielsenJ.MackR. (1994), Usability inspection methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10.
SprolesN. (2000, December). Applying behavioural science techniques to the test and evaluation of complex systems (Tech. Rep. No. DSTO-GD-0263). Salisbury, Australia: Defence Science and Technology Organization.
11.
StokesA. F.WickensC. D. (1988). Aviation displays. In WienerE. L.NagelD. C. (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 387–432). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
VidulichM. A.BoliaR.S.NelsonW.T. (2004). Technology, organization and collaborative situation awareness in air battle management: Historical and theoretical perspectives. In BanburyS.TremblayS. (Eds.). A cognitive approach to situation awareness: Theory, measures, and applications (pp. 233–253).
13.
WilligesR. C.WilligesB. H.FainterR. G. (1988). Software interfaces for aviation systems. In WienerE. L.NagelD. C. (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 463–494). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
